Posted on 05/19/2008 9:29:55 AM PDT by seanmerc
John McCain is America's favorite kind of candidate. With his record of extraordinary patriotism and his distinctive Senate tenure, McCain is a nominee whom voters from both parties — and independents, too — could easily support.
But he has been dealt a terrible hand: a tanking economy, an unpopular war, a Republican incumbent whose approval ratings are at their all-time low and a gloomy national mood, with 82 percent of Americans saying in a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week that the country is on the wrong track.
Political scientists add all that up and predict that the Democrats are destined to win the White House. But I don't do political science; I do politics, and I'm convinced that McCain can still win, if he's willing to follow the road map below.
Stay the Course
McCain needs to not run as a traditional Republican, which is easy, since he's not one.
After all, how did an anti-torture, anti-tobacco, pro-campaign finance reform, anti-pork, pro-alternative-energy Republican ever emerge from the primaries alive? Simple: The GOP electorate, along with the rest of the country, has moved somewhat to the left. (In Florida, for example, exit polls showed that only 27 percent of Republican primary voters described themselves as "very conservative," while 28 percent said they were "moderate" and 2 percent said they were "very liberal.")
Meanwhile, McCain's likely rival, Barack Obama, has raised such doubts among voters that their concerns momentarily energized even Hillary Rodham Clinton's sagging campaign. With the help of the incendiary comments of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., Obama's negatives have been rising even as he nears the finish line.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
If true conservatives like Hunter and Tancredo couldn't get above single digits, in a GOP *primary*, that tells you all you need to know about the state of conservatism today.
I strongly disagree with your take on Pres. Bush. I've met the man, followed him closely, and he is in it for ANYTHING but "himself." You may not agree with his ideas, but he definitely has done what he thought was right.
Absolutely. It is distressing that cheap-shot attacks on Bush pass for conservative wisdom these days. They do a disservice to him and to the truth. Bush has in many ways been a great President.
One main reason I don't buy the "true conservative" will win is 2006. There were simply too many VERY conservative senators and congressmen who lose, and it can't be blamed on "macaca" or Tom Foley. Talent, Burns, Santorum were very conservative as was J.D. Hayworth. DeWine, although he had problems with conservatives on some issues, still had a lifetime ACU rating of 86. Conservatives just lost in Mississippi and Louisiana.
Right on. The idea that this is all about the GOP being too moderate is lunacy. We have serious issues with the base, but that is only a part of it. Basic issues of war, economy and trust have hurt GOP brand. People are much more accepting of big Govt now than 10 years ago. Partly to blame are GOP leaders who stopped articulating smaller Govt, but partly its change in voter attitudes. War footing perhaps?
Sometimes, we conservatives need to ditch the notion that the country is "always with us." It ain't. Churchill had to be a voice in the wilderness for 10 years against Hitlerism before he was accepted. The Brits had to sink into real depths before they elected conservatives and Margaret Thatcher. Our own Declaration stated that people will put up with evil or corrupt government much longer than they should, because, Jefferson said, it's the nature of people.
We above all have to shed the phony and easy whistling past the graveyard that if we try something that worked 14 years ago that it will work again. NO CAN DO.
Here's a bright spot: Jindhal won in Louisiana. Look into that race read the tea leaves. What is his message, agenda, positioning, capability?
Your kind voted for Perot and gave us eight years of Clintonism. Gonna make yourself proud and do it again?
BTW, 2 years of Clinton gave us the first GOP congress in 40 years. In one year, they accomplished more than all the congressional Republicans had in the previous 40. But after 1995, they had a chance to really do something . . . then nominated McCain,er, Dole.
That's the key, though. There has to be a clear message, organized around a handful of core ideas. Drill for more oil. Build five new nuke reactors. Save the young people (by saving SS and Medicare).
I'm not a "dead ender." I think there is a time for a strategic redeployment. Even Wellington moved his troops back when they were being slaughtered---to more favorable ground. Our favorable ground is to re-constitute a core minority that can block Obama and design a new Contract with America. This is going to require a serious purge of the blue-boods, and the only way that can happen is with heavy battlefield casualties. You said it yourself in your other post---Republicans are whistline past the graveyard thinking they can be Dems lite. They have to offer a RADICALLY different alternative, be prepared to pounce on Obama WHEN he falls (because he will---he's too incompetent not to) and be ready with real, energized, focused candidates for 2010.
Interesting. I wonder if he's polling on Keyes or if he is ignoring Alan likemost of the media seems to hve decided to do. I guess in BigMediaWorld, only one black at a time is allowed ot run for President. (In fact, there may well be three on the ballot -- Keyes, Obama, and for the Far Left, Cynthia McKinney.)
But by all means vote your conscience, if it makes you feel better and elects an Obamabeast.
The only thing you can possibly blame Perot for is that, by and large, he criticized Bush more than Clinton, and his presence largely took the spotlight off Clinton's sexual scandals that MAY (I emphasize may) have gotten some press attention. But that's doubtful.
But if right now I could trade Bush (whom I love) and a Dem House/Senate/statehouses/governors for Clinton and the 1994-1995 GOP House and the energy and idealism of that period, I'd do it in a minute. Aside from the WoT (big aside, I know), we got more accomplished as a majority in the House, even without the Senate, than we did by owning all three branches of government.
Imagine that, a Faux News Contributer with more “Raw-Raw McCain!” rhetoric...... And we’ll all just drift happily to the middle, Whoopeee!
Haven’t we already done that? How well is that workin’?
The party is way too moderate. It has abandoned its base and contradicts the will of the people with pieces of crap like Dubya’s amnesty bill.
Nor do we have a clear agenda. We are now basically wandering vagabonds representing every end of the politcal spectrum from libs like Specter and Snowe to TRUE Republicans like Coburn and Mike Pence. We can win the people back by repudiating the big government “moderate” label and by turning the GOP back into an instrument of conservative change, not just blurry non-democrats.
Im swear, the apologists for the Ted Kennedy wing (i.e., Juan McCain, Arlen Specter) of my party utterly sicken me. Who the hell are we now? What happened to all of the ideology of the Reagan Revolution and the Contract with America? Think about the answer to those questions...
Perot mostly got “Independent” voters in both elections.
They were largely Liberaltarian or independent types who wanted free dope and less law and order. They also bought in to his “Lobbyist” hating rhetoric. Most thinking Conservatives (about 90%) stayed loyal to the GOP. This notion that most hard-core Conservatives supported Perot because he was hard-core Conservative, is pure horse pucky.
After that, it was pure luck that Reaganomics kicked in from the delayed Desert Storm reaction, during BJ’s first term and the Computer Revolution blew the doors off the economic limits. Naturally BJ took, and was given credit for it. Which is the only reason he survived two terms. It was also because of our spineless GOP leadership in the Senate that he remained in office.
Nothing more to point blame at here.
the only Perot voter I know has always voted Dem.
I strongly disagree with your take on Pres. Bush. I’ve met the man, followed him closely, and he is in it for ANYTHING but “himself.” You may not agree with his ideas, but he definitely has done what he thought was right.
&&&
I think you confused me with another poster; my comments say nothing about President Bush.
BTW, I agree with your assessment of Bush. He has greatly disappointed me on immigration, but I choose to believe that he is misguided.
I’m sorry. Forgive me. Yes, I disagree with him on many things, but I still rank him in the top 20 American presidents. If he had stopped in 04, I’d have put him in the top 5.
"Special interests" and their money has sucked the life out of it.
No problem.
Re: If he had stopped in 04, I’d have put him in the top 5.
Ditto, my FRiend.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.